Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

You are arguing for God.

LOL...................? I suspect that many people connect the two, as if one informs or depends on the other. I can see why, religious folk babble about it like they know shit. Secular moral realism, however, is the predominant view of contemporary moral theorists. That gives me alot of material ( and different versions of moral systems) to play with.

What makes something bad even if subjective agents don't know it's bad?  Badness is a judgment that things are not as they should ideally be.  Who/what makes that judgment, if not individual subjective agents, or a collection of agents through some mode of negotiation?

What makes two and two four when the kid doesn't know how to add?  

OFC we make the judgement (to be fair and general I'll say that moral agents - whatever they may be- make the judgement).  We're not always competent or well informed, though.  Also true regardless of the ontological or epistemic status of morality.

Rape is bad, for the individual being raped, because it is an offense to his/her liberty, health and dignity.  Rape is bad, for the collective Western thinker, because we care about people's liberty, health and dignity, and because we care about the social contract which extends that liberty, health and dignity to each of us.

Can you demonstrate that rape is an offense to liberty, health, and dignity?  If you were of the opinion rape was good...would it -not- be an offense to liberty, health, and dignity?

It may be that out there, somewhere in the ether, is some expression of intrinsic badness.  But how, as a subjective agent, would you know?  How, as a collective of subjective agents, would we ever distinguish those from subjective ones?

How can the kid know that two and two is four?  

The terms objective and subjective..despite all the pointless and inane bickering in thread, do mean something.  We're capable of distinguishing between "opinions make it wrong" and "facts make it wrong". The question above isn't directly related to whether or not there are moral facts, but whether or not we can access them. We don't seem to balk at the accessibility of other facts, subjective agents and all, a moral realist would ask why we would make this a special case.

It's certainly possible for a person to be so ignorant, conflicted, or compromised that they simply couldn't access a moral fact. That's the utility of normative deontology as conditioning. Consider, we begin by telling a child that they have one duty. To follow the rules. Here's the list of rules. Does the kid know why items are on the bad side and the good side? Not always, and for the most part it doesn't matter if they know why. We expect them to come to understand those rules and the consequences of their not being followed (especially by breaking them, lol) as they age......but it's completely mundane to note that there is a point in their lives where they have access to the rules but not the underlying schema, that they are morally ignorant. We understand that children have severe impulse and self control issues - that even if a kid -did- know why the sharing rule was in place, they may not want to..might find it palpably difficult to let go of the item and give someone else a turn. They may be throwing a fit, completely compromised at that point. They may not understand the rule at all, and act out accordingly. The trifecta.

Sometimes...and this is my favorite, the rule is not consistent with what they see as their best interests, so even if they did know, were calm and under control, and could conform..they won't, lol.

All of this can be equally true of adults. All of this is true regardless of whether the list is a description of my opinion....or based upon moral facts.

Lots of words, but I could condense the question and the answer. Can a subjective agent access a fact? Yes. Do all subjective agents have access to all relevant facts? No. Will a subjective agent conform to facts? Meh, spotty. Again, moral realism is a position regarding the ontological or epistemic status of morality, not a series of novel comments on human beings (moral agents). Everything that you see around you that is true of moral agents is still and equally true in a world with or without objective morality.